What you said doesn't contradict what I said. What you're actually asking is that Manning provide the evidence that Levin *should have had* when he was running off his mouth. This is punishing Manning for trying to defend himself through the only legal means available to him.

I say - if you're running off your mouth about lies for which you have no evidence then you're just as guilty of libel whether or not what you say is true. Or at least should be discouraged. Otherwise that gives me the ability to go running around slandering others as a way of forcing disclosure of whatever I want (transactions, proprietary data, sex tapes, etc.).

So the goal is to allow a guy who made baseless claims to go hunting for a base?

Well put #46776163.

Guns are more *personal*.

I'm absolutely fine with saying the Bible is not the inspired word actually. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think I am. I'm a bit surprised you are...

See - this is what Christians do when presented with the unpleasant bits of the Bible. All of a sudden "it's man's word." But find parts you agree with and it becomes "God's word" again. I don't know your personal theology. But to me it sounds like we partially agree. The Bible was written by man and is therefore no more important in many regards than anything else - except as an historic text. It proves nothing divine.

How do you know this? And how do you know other parts aren't? What justification do you use for cherry-picking parts you like from those you don't?

I think the point is that what God considers to be "righteous" is entirely arbitrary and random like the whims of a mad-man. One minute he's saving the life of a man who would give his daughters to an angry mob to be gang-raped, the next he's torturing a guy for being just a little too self-centered, then he's flooding the entire Earth because 'fuck it.'

The thing is - Lot was "the guy" God saved. This shining example of humanity offered his daughters up to an angry mob for gang-rape. Sure "in that time and context" it may have been a "big deal." But we're talking about objective morals set forth by a morally perfect deity. God in the story effectively rubber stamps Lot's actions as those of a virtuous man since he allows him to be saved.

Not to mention the laughable tale at the end about how Lot's daughters "get him drunk and sleep with him." Riiiiight. That's it. *They* seduced *me*!

In fact climatologists don't consider 1997-1998 to be normal - they treat it as an outlier. It's the deniers who pick up on it and say "we've been getting cooler since 1998!".

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Who says they're running a stock ROM?

Source?

You're surprised people can be that stupid?

Which is what needs to be remembered in all of these bitcoin discussions. If I gave cash to "some guy" and he stole it nobody would be saying "well you just can't trust paper currency!" They'd be saying "why the fsck did you give your money to 'some guy?"

Neither does he!

How *dare* they entice us to click a link and read an article before commenting! I won't hear of such a thing!

Newton's laws also don't handle compound interest on a loan well. So what? There are other equations for taking friction into account. Use the right laws for the right task. It's not Newton's fault if you don't know what you're doing.